Answer: All qualities assigned to IT fail to capture IT. Try to replace the words 'Joy' in the above quote with Self, Tao, Emptiness, Fullness, God, IT, Consciousness, or any other label, and see what resonates. All such words are conceptual pointers to That what is not a concept.

We can easily call it Pure Joy when we look at the amazing display of galactic fire works, and at the great diversity in which IT shows up to itself. Like Pure Joy, IT is its own reason for being and non-being.

Perhaps Unconditional Love resonates when we point to IT with concepts that focus on the unconditional willingness of IT to be everything, from the lowliest creature to the most saintly of saints. It embraces the 'wicked' as well as the 'virtuous' and as such it could also be called 'Total Acceptance.' Or perhaps No-thing-ness resonates as it cannot be called a thing; yet all apparent 'things' have their existence in it.

When we learn to ride a bicycle, we are concerned with our balance; once we know how to ride, the concept of balance does no longer come up. Balance is simply there. In the same way, when Self (re)cognizes Self, all labels can be forgotten.

Something beyond words knows these words as they arise and subside. This is as much a mystery that eludes all classification, as a simple and clear Presence that cannot be denied. What shall we say about this? Perhaps Thomas Keating came close to expressing this when he said:
"Silence is the language God speaks and everything else is a bad translation"

Oneness dreams difference where there is none, including someone who can forget labels, concepts, and language, as opposed to someone who cannot.............both equally each other and The One Love in Action.

Answer: All qualities assigned to IT fail to capture IT. Try to replace the words 'Joy' in the above quote with Self, Tao, Emptiness, Fullness, God, IT, Consciousness, or any other label, and see what resonates. All such words are conceptual pointers to That what is not a concept.

We can easily call it Pure Joy when we look at the amazing display of galactic fire works, and at the great diversity in which IT shows up to itself. Like Pure Joy, IT is its own reason for being and non-being.

Perhaps Unconditional Love resonates when we point to IT with concepts that focus on the unconditional willingness of IT to be everything, from the lowliest creature to the most saintly of saints. It embraces the 'wicked' as well as the 'virtuous' and as such it could also be called 'Total Acceptance.' Or perhaps No-thing-ness resonates as it cannot be called a thing; yet all apparent 'things' have their existence in it.

When we learn to ride a bicycle, we are concerned with our balance; once we know how to ride, the concept of balance does no longer come up. Balance is simply there. In the same way, when Self (re)cognizes Self, all labels can be forgotten.

Something beyond words knows these words as they arise and subside. This is as much a mystery that eludes all classification, as a simple and clear Presence that cannot be denied. What shall we say about this? Perhaps Thomas Keating came close to expressing this when he said:
"Silence is the language God speaks and everything else is a bad translation"

Oneness dreams difference where there is none, including someone who can forget labels, concepts, and language, as opposed to someone who cannot.............both equally each other and The One Love in Action.

Only the last paragragh is posted by heron. The rest is a quote from Leo's newsletter.

Oneness dreams difference where there is none, including someone who can forget labels, concepts, and language, as opposed to someone who cannot.............both equally each other and The One Love in Action.

Yes Heron. that is a one way to point at it, but on careful reading it does not say that 'someone' does the forgetting of all labels. It says "when Self (re)cognizes Self, all labels can be forgotten. "

And yes again, forgotten or not... It is all the One Expression; or -to use your label- "The One Love in Action." Still... the One appearing as Thomas Keating was on to something...or so it seems.

Oneness dreams difference where there is none, including someone who can forget labels, concepts, and language, as opposed to someone who cannot.............both equally each other and The One Love in Action.

Yes Heron. that is a one way to point at it, but on careful reading it does not say that 'someone' does the forgetting of all labels. It says "when Self (re)cognizes Self, all labels can be forgotten. "

And yes again, forgotten or not... It is all the One Expression; or -to use your label- "The One Love in Action." Still... the One appearing as Thomas Keating was on to something...or so it seems.

The implication is that there is awakening......."self (re)cognizes self", and that the forgetting of labels, language, and concepts is somehow involved in that. In these subtle ways, seekers are reinforced in the idea that there is a separate person and that there is something to attain.

The implication is that there is awakening......."self (re)cognizes self", and that the forgetting of labels, language, and concepts is somehow involved in that. In these subtle ways, seekers are reinforced in the idea that there is a separate person and that there is something to attain.

This and many other implications can be seen in this. However, it is not what is pointed to here; the implication is as much in the eye of the beholder as it is in the words.

Yes, there is no separate beholder, nor is there a seeker that can be fooled, or spurred on to attainment.

It is simply not possible to express it in words accurately, there can only be pointers. When the words are taken literally, it is like climbing a signpost in order to reach where it is pointing.

We certainly can find fault with every concept. It is all it, yet nothing is it. Just more concepts dancing. It is not for nothing that Thomas Keating was granted the last word.

The implication is that there is awakening......."self (re)cognizes self", and that the forgetting of labels, language, and concepts is somehow involved in that. In these subtle ways, seekers are reinforced in the idea that there is a separate person and that there is something to attain.

This and many other implications can be seen in this. However, it is not what is pointed to here; the implication is as much in the eye of the beholder as it is in the words.

Yes, there is no separate beholder, nor is there a seeker that can be fooled, or spurred on to attainment.

It is simply not possible to express it in words accurately, there can only be pointers. When the words are taken literally, it is like climbing a signpost in order to reach where it is pointing.

We certainly can find fault with every concept. It is all it, yet nothing is it. Just more concepts dancing. It is not for nothing that Thomas Keating was granted the last word.

But of course, you're welcome to it too Heron.

Yes Leo.......dream stories rather than definitive statements. Maybe there can be clear descriptions of the stories. Dreamt words about dreams. Not everyone finds pleasure in the attempt to clarify and compare them, simply for the wonder of the Love in Action that is all we have to compare, rather than a contest between last words.

In this dream story there is no pleasure in last word contests. Thomas Keating would be thanked for clarifying his dream story, assuming he regarded it as such, rather than a definitive statement about god and his preferences for silence as opposed to language. In the latter case maybe he would not be granted the last word.

Yes, agreed, as long as this is seen, the concepts will be treated as pointers rather the as absolutest.

heron wrote:

Maybe there can be clear descriptions of the stories.

One can always try, but words often have different connotations for different people. The simple combination of 3 letters d-g-o, can spell dog and god... And then there are those that get all soft and those that get all rigid when they hear either of these words.

heron wrote:

In this dream story there is no pleasure in last word contests. Thomas Keating would be thanked for clarifying his dream story, assuming he regarded it as such, rather than a definitive statement about god and his preferences for silence as opposed to language. In the latter case maybe he would not be granted the last word.

This is in itself a good example how the same statement can have different interpretations. We could read his words as a preference for silence as opposed to language. We could also read it as that he sees silence as its own language. We could see words as a disturbance of silence or we could see silence as the container of all words, without ever being disturbed.

And of course we could say that there is no 'we' to do all this in the first place. It just depends where the reading focus 'lands.'

"We could read his words as a preference for silence as opposed to language. We could also read it as that he sees silence as its own language. We could see words as a disturbance of silence or we could see silence as the container of all words, without ever being disturbed"